2026 Legislative Update
I. HB2780
HB 2780 is a sweeping omnibus property tax bill that includes numerous provisions that would significantly affect school district funding, local decision-making authority, and long-term financial stability.
Based on my preliminary calculations, HB 2780 would result in an estimated loss of $18,468.08 in tax revenue to our district. While that number may appear modest in isolation, it represents a meaningful loss for a small rural district like ours—and it is likely an underestimate due to several unknown variables, including future tax abatements and other factors that cannot be reliably calculated at this time.
Three primary factors contributed to my calculations:
1. Elimination of Revenue Neutrality Steps
2. Application of the Hancock Amendment to new real construction and new personal property
3. Reduction of the statutory minimum levy from $2.75 to $1.50
Local Election Changes
The bill prevents school districts from describing ballot measures as “no tax increase” proposals and requires tax measures and school board elections to be held exclusively in November. This limits local flexibility and our ability to align elections with community timing and district needs.
Reduction in Assessed Valuation Growth
By altering property assessment methods—requiring replacement cost valuation and limiting increases in commercial property values absent physical inspection—the bill could significantly slow assessed valuation growth. For expanding or developing communities, this change directly impacts the natural growth districts rely on to support student needs.
Levy Reductions Tied to Economic Development Incentives
If a district receives revenue through Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs), HB 2780 would require a corresponding levy reduction. This eliminates the net financial benefit districts currently receive from participating in economic development projects, ultimately discouraging growth partnerships that benefit our communities.
Expansion of Rollback Provisions to New Construction and Improvements
Applying rollback requirements to new growth further restricts a district’s ability to generate revenue needed to serve additional students. As enrollment increases, so do costs—staffing, transportation, facilities, utilities, and instructional resources. This provision limits our capacity to respond responsibly to that growth.
Reduction of the Statutory Minimum Levy
Lowering the statutory minimum levy from $2.75 to $1.50 fundamentally alters long-standing assumptions in Missouri’s school finance system. This change weakens the financial foundation upon which districts plan and operate and creates significant uncertainty moving forward.
Taken together, these provisions significantly constrain local revenue capacity, reduce financial predictability, and limit our ability to meet both enrollment growth and increasing state requirements. For Strasburg C-3, even a projected loss of $18,468.08 represents resources that directly support classrooms, student programs, and essential operations.
II. Missouri A–F Accountability Proposals (February 2026)
The Missouri Association of School Administrators received an update on ongoing efforts to establish an A–F school and district grading system in Missouri. These efforts stem from three parallel actions: a December 2025 request from a State Board of Education member, Governor Kehoe’s Executive Order 26-01 (January 13, 2026), and several filed bills, most notably HB 2710.
Overview of the A–F Initiative
The proposed A–F system would assign every public school and district a letter grade (A–F) based on academic performance and growth. The intent is to provide clearer, more accessible accountability information for families and the public. Missouri already reports extensive accountability data through MSIP and the APR; the A–F proposal represents a shift in how that information may be summarized and communicated.
State Board Request and Simulation Findings
The State Board requested a simulation of a “90/10” grading model, with 90% of the grade based on academic measures and 10% on other factors (e.g., attendance, graduation rate, college/career readiness). A simulation using current APR data showed a significant downward shift in grades statewide under a strict 90/10 approach, with a large increase in schools receiving D or F ratings. These results are illustrative only, as final methodologies and grade cut scores have not been determined.
Governor’s Executive Order 26-01
The Executive Order directs the State Board and DESE to develop an annual A–F grading framework with:
Heavy emphasis on academic achievement and growth
New “growth to proficiency” measures
Penalties for schools testing fewer than 95% of students
Required public release timelines (embargoed data by mid-September; public release by end of September)
An automatic increase in grading rigor when 65% of schools earn an A or B
The Order also highlights challenges for small and rural schools, including data suppression and schools without tested grade levels, which may limit the ability to assign grades to all buildings.
House Bill 2710 (Diehl)
HB 2710 goes beyond the Executive Order by:
Specifying exact weighting formulas for grade calculations
Accelerating public release timelines (July–August)
Creating a “Show Me Success” incentive program that financially rewards top-performing and high-growth schools
Requiring six-month graduate follow-up reporting
Establishing a DESE accountability report card
Under the incentive program, potential funding ranges widely, from a few hundred dollars for very small schools to several hundred thousand dollars for large districts.
Current Status and Key Considerations
An A–F grading system is expected to be implemented for districts and schools, with first releases anticipated in fall 2026.
DESE and the State Board will determine the final methodology, grade ranges, and handling of small or non-tested schools.
HB 2710 has been heard in committee but not yet passed.
Significant questions remain regarding alignment with MSIP, impacts on rural districts, public interpretation of grades, and unintended consequences of simplified ratings.
Local District Impact
Given the District’s small enrollment and rural context, implementation of a statewide A–F grading system may present unique challenges. Limited student group sizes and grade configurations could result in data suppression or incomplete measures, potentially affecting the accuracy and comparability of letter grades. Heavy weighting on tested academic measures may also reduce the influence of factors such as growth trends, student engagement, and continuous improvement efforts that are currently reflected in the MSIP/APR system. District leadership will continue to monitor guidance from DESE and the State Board to understand how small and rural districts will be treated within the A–F framework and will communicate proactively with the Board and community as additional details become available.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Chrystal Mayfield
Superintendent
Strasburg C-3 School District